IS MANUAL A MENACE ?

NZ Truth, Issue 818, 16 July 1921, Page 5

IS MANUAL A MENACE ?

HINDU BARRISTER WILD PRACTICE IN NX

But Law Society Doubts His Loyalty

AN ECHO OF THE fIJI SUGAR STRIKE RIOTS

Maginail Manilal, the Hindu barrister, who was m the limelight a lot dur•iner the strikes amongst the indentured Hindus on the Fiji sugar plantations m 1919, made application some time ago to be admitted to the New Zealand Bar. The application came before Sir Robert Stout, fit Auckland, and as' the Chief Justice hum'd and had about it, the question was thrashed out further on Friday last, before the full court (Judges Sim, Hosking, Stringer, Reed and Adams) . Manilal, m the meantime has been living on a farm m the Waikato, managed by Indians. Lawyer P. J. O'Regan appeared for the Hindu pundit, and Mr. H. P. Richmond for the Auckland Law Society.' Mr. O'Regan opened by informing the court that Manilal was, a Hindu gentleman of unquestionable qualifications and had practiced m the Island of Mauritis ' and m Fiji. Judge Reed wanted to know if Manilal, being born m the native State of Baroda, was really a British subject. ,It was decided, howevex*, that the -point was not vital, as there was nothing "m the Act to show that an .applicant must be a Ber-ritish subject. Continuing, Mr. O'Regan said that Manilal had not been struck off the rolls at Fiji, and strictly speaking, had not been deported. In March, 1920, ' under the provisions of an ordinance of 1875, he had been ordered not to reside m certain portions of Fiji' for a period of two years./ Probably when

that term had, expired, he would return and take Up his practice again. "If hd was a man 'of had character, why had he been allowed to remain on the roll?" asked "Pay Jay." . Counsel then quoted a despatch from the Governor of the group to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, which seemed to be contradictory regarding Manilal's influence T^ith the Indians. One portion referred to him •as "the prime mover" m the agitation, and yet a little later .a mild rebuke was administered to the Colonial Sugar Company for not having- granted certain concessions earlier, which would have averted the trouble. "The trouble arose out of economic conditions," said counsel, "the strike was not caused by a ringleader — strikes never are." "I take it that you mean that this strike was NOT DUE TO DISLO,YALTY?" queried Judge Hosking. , . \ "That isso, your Honors. The trouble arose out of economic (conditions, though racial feeling may have carried the matter- further. I invite your Honors to believe that the Indian population of Fiji is- not disloyal, and as the Indians have since got 2s Gd a ton more for their sugar-cane and 20s an acre for land under cultivation, they no .doubt are firmly of the opinion that the strike was quite justified. If Manilal had offended so seriously, why had not a specific charge been levelled against him? Surely he should have been given the opportunity of clear- , ing his name of the slur m a court of law. The only definite charge appeared to be. a trifling matter of Manila! having occupied a piece of land m contravention of the regulations. Counsel then referred to ,the numerous affidavits of character which had been filed by Manilal. They iare very excellent affidavits from people m different walks. of life. Of course, there were affidavits on the other side, but counsel ventured to say that the 'balance was m favor of Manilal's admission. The case would be watched carefully by the Indian population m various parts of the Empire. Manilal's admission could not fair to have, anything but a good effect. Counsel hoped the court would not be influenced by the fact that Manilal was an Indian. " . Mr. Richmond, on behalf of the Law Society, said that the society took an entirely impartial stand m - the matter and was not m the least bit concerned about the applicant being a Hindu, if his qualifications and character were perfectly sound. There was " NO RACIAL, QUESTION • INVOLVED. Counsel, continuing, said that the application actually came before the Chief Justice, and he expressed the opinion that further inquiries should be made m Fiji. The Law Society now simply presented to the court the evidence it had obtained and left the whole responsibility m the hands of the court. "The Society," said counsel, "has very grave grounds for doubting whether Mr. Manilal is of such fitness of character as the Act requires, and from inquiries made, it has reason to boliove that lie has not been a loyal subject." .Tuclffe Stringer: There is no spepific allocation against him m any of the affirlnvits. Judge Hosking: Ton ■will get six persons to swear of a man's good character to one who will swear it is bad. You will find many persons who could

[not give a good character, but will refuse to give a bad one. ' Mr. Richmond: "Of the twenty affidavits filed", by Manila!, I don't think there is one from a client of his:" Judge: Is there any suggestion that his business transactions were not satisfactory? Counsel: No. There has been extreme difficulty m making inquiries , owing to the fact that the relations/, between the Fiji and Indian Govern-*, ments are particularly delicate on account of the indentured labor question. The Fiji Government does not desire to inflame them m any way, and trouble is still fermenting. I know more ' than I can say m the matter, as much of the information we have received is confidential. Attacking the affidavits further, counsel said that there was no certificate" of character by a judge or magistrate or any : officer of any court m any part of the world where Manilal had practiced. He had, however, ' > COLLECTED THEM FROM CHINAMEN. and Indians. He had also only got one affidavit from a member of the legal profession m New. Zealand, from Mr. J. J. Sullivan, of Auckland, who merely said he had known Manilal * for five months. As a''matter of fact; Manilal had not lived m Auckland most of that time. Another, point was that many ofthe deponents had no knowledge of Manilal's character during the years 1919-20, which were the' significant years. Manilal was deported on the ground that he was . a danger to the peace and goodwill of the colony and* disaffected to ( the King. •.Counsel then referred to the affi-i davits oi' Messrs. J. MeCombs and F. Bartram, Ms.P. These New Zealand; politicians, said counsel, were only m Fiji for two or three days on a parlia- , mentary tour, and they expressed their ' opinion as the .result of inquiries they had made, and they came to the conclusion that he was not the cause of the strikes. Such a flying visit .was - not be be seriously treated as. forming 7 a basis of judging his character. The affidavit of Lawyer Sullivan -should! also be treated as of no effect. It was \ purely formal. Then there was an am - I' davit by" Mr, Clement Wragge, of Auckland. He seemed to be intimately, connected^ with most of 'THE CROWNED HEADS OF INDIA (laughter), and he said -he had known the applicant, but m what respect or for how long, he did not tell the ; court. *He said that he was firmly ponvinced that Mr. Manilal is an Indian gentleman .of high caste and /• good character and that he thoroughly believed him to.be respected amongst his, compatriots as a man of good repu- v tatibn. It was nothing more than a piece of "double hearsay." Then there was an affidavit of a Mr. Sum Shing. One could riot help doubting whether Mt. Sum/ Shing really drew up the words m the affidavit. The fourth • paragraph suggested the flowery effusions of a Babu scholar. The affidavit ; of a Mr. G. 'W. Gustaffson appeared to be more remarkable. That gentleman was a cierk m the G.P.O. m 1920. Some of the paragraphs were even more remarkable m that they were almost classical. One. could not help wondering if this gentleman really'understood what he was writing about 'or was swearing to. It suggested that he was a Latin scholar like Manilal himself. A clerk m the G.P.O. would •hardly be likely, to write effusions of .tfiat - kind. The Colonial Sugar Company seem- * ed to be the bete noir of the gentlemen who filed affidavits m support of Manilal. There was one from Mr. Sidney- Hing Lowe, ANOTHER CHINESE GENTLEMAN, m New South Wales, who said he was founder . and of the Chines© National League. Why was it necessary to g& to. a; Chinaman m New South "Wales for an affidavit repute? The affidavit of Mr. Scott, a member, of the Executive Council and the leader of the Fiji Bar, who was retained by the Government to make certain inquiries into the strikes and riots, when 200 Jndians were placed on their trial, led him 1 to .state that ' Manilal was practically the cause of the disturbance, and was disaffected to His Majesty the King. The ma- . terial upon which Mr. Scott formed his opinion was confidential, and counsel was unable to place it before the court. Mr. Scott, speaking as leader . of the Fiji' Bar, said he was of opinion that Manilal was unfit for admission. Mr. Ellis, another prominent Fiji lawyer, who practiced alongside Mr. Manilal for many years, , contradicted Manilal's personal affidavit, m certain respects. Another affidavit from one of the "Ay-de-kongs" from Government 'Ouse, Fiji, was also adverse to the applicant. . \ . Mr. Richmond, m "knocking" other affidavits, stressed the horrible things that- had been done during the strike to th& loyal Hindus. Women had made • A DISGUSTING MIXTURE of red pepper and other abominable ingredients which could not be referred to, and had thrown it into the eyes of the loyal Indians., Counsel said the Law Society wished to protect the honor of the profession, and to protect the public against any man who was not a fit and proper person to enjoy the privileges of a solicitor and barrister. According to the affidavit of Mr. Ellis, Mr. Manilal would be a danger to the Indians. Judge Hosking: Does he intend to practice amongst Europeans? Mr. O'Regan: It is his intention to practice amongst people of his own race. ■ ' His Honor: One deponent suggests that he practiced "upon them" and not "among them." I suppose, however, any , irate person might lay such a charge. Mr. Q'Regan replied to the Law Society, and the court reserved decision.